1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination
2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Sandra Felgueiras interviews Gonçalo Amaral and Isabel Duarte

«I don’t know what goes on in Portimão, but I can tell you that the issue of the reopening of the process, that is approached by the McCann couple, is a lie, because they did everything to archive the process (...)» Gonçalo Amaral

Anchor: "The court has just decided that Gonçalo Amaral’s book is not going to be put on sale, thus accepting the injunction that was requested by the McCann couple, which suspended the book and the documentary on the same subject that was broadcast by TVI. Last week, the former Polícia Judiciária inspector had defended the reopening of the process into the child’s disappearance, saying that hundreds of diligences had not been carried out.

This morning, entering the session, Gonçalo Amaral showed he was confident.

But at this time, Sandra Felgueiras, good afternoon, and facing the court’s decision, this confidence has collapsed."

Sandra Felgueiras: “It collapses, but Gonçalo Amaral left the court building saying that he will appeal the decision, until wherever necessary.

But Gonçalo Amaral is already here with me, and at this moment, I would like to ask you [Gonçalo Amaral] if, with your expectations collapsing, you feel that you are a censored man in Portugal.”

Gonçalo Amaral: “That is a fact. But expectations… this was one decision among the various possible decisions. Therefore, we were always prepared for this kind of decision, and the next step is an appeal.”

SF: “What do you think happened to the contribution that was given, in court session, by your former colleagues from the Judiciária, who came here to reaffirm the thesis that you continue to be forbidden from repeating? Why wasn’t it validated by the magistrate?”

GA: “I started to perceive… I trust justice very much, and I started to perceive that very often, what happens during trial hearings does not reflect itself on the sentences that are known. Therefore… this is the Portuguese justice system in operation.”

SF: “But does it discredit Portuguese justice, at the moment? Do you believe that this decision puts the possibility of taking forward, and of writing what one believes is right, at stake?”

GA: “Exactly. This is a very dangerous decision, a decision that from now on can put any other book at stake. It puts at stake the possibility of the Portuguese people learning about facts, of accessing certain opinions, and of the reader, the Portuguese citizen, himself, forming his own opinion from what he reads and from what he sees. It looks like from now on, the Portuguese people are sheep, and the rest doesn’t matter anymore. Certain formed opinions matter, from those who sometimes make public opinion, or who sell it on the market.”

SF: “The Truth of the Lie thus remains forbidden on the market, Gonçalo Amaral remains forbidden from repeating the thesis; you have already told me that you will appeal to wherever necessary. Can you tell precisely for how long you are available to continue this fight?”

GA: “Until we reach the European Court of Human Rights. There, we have no doubts. And if that is where we have to go, we will get there. But now we are in the appeal phase, so I’m going to the second instance, and we shall see what the decision is.”

SF: “Nevertheless, with this decision, don’t you think that your pretension starts to lose some credibility in the country, even more so as last week you said you wanted to reopen the process, but at the same time the McCann couple presented, as they said, evidence that your colleagues in Faro, or in Portimão, to be more correct, have not been properly investigating the search for the child.”

GA: “You are asking two completely different questions. I don’t know what goes on in Portimão, but I can tell you that the issue of the reopening of the process, that is approached by the McCann couple, is a lie, because they did everything to archive the process, so one doesn’t understand why the reopening of the process.

And then that is how it is: as you know, in the archiving dispatch from the Public Ministry, several possibilities are mentioned. In order to reopen the process, all of those possibilities have to be investigated. And that is certainly not what the couple wants, that all possibilities are investigated.

Concerning the other part, that not all leads are investigated, what always arrived at the police, and what is most likely to be arriving at this moment, are leads of sightings, I presume that they are of that kind, because I heard the McCanns’ lawyer mentioning fifty similar or resembling children. I would say that there are many children like that one in the world.”

SF: “Do you really believe that you did everything in your power to search for Madeleine McCann alive?”

GA: “I have no doubts whatsoever about that. That work is reflected in the book, The Truth of the Lie, and that is why the book was written, and there is no criticism concerning the work that was done, after the book was published.”

SF: “Thank you. Such is the conviction of Gonçalo Amaral, and I’m now going to risk performing a somewhat complicated manoeuvre, even more so because there is a cable here, Pedro. Anyway, it is also important at this point in time to hear the opinion of the McCann couple’s lawyer. The McCann couple is not in Portugal, this time, although they attended the previous hearings, both in December and in January. This time they chose not to come to Portugal, to hear the final sentence. Anyway, Isabel Duarte has already read to us the message that she received from Kate Healy, right after communicating to her that the decision had been favourable. And that message, Isabel Duarte, live for RTPN, I would ask you to tell us what the reaction was, from the McCann couple, about this, let’s call it victory.”

Isabel Duarte: “I sent a message to my client, Kate - my client [Gerry] is working right now - and she replied to me that, apart from thanking everyone that had supported her, and asking me to do so, this decision was the reopening of conditions to restart searching for her daughter with efficacy and success. It would be something good for Madeleine.”

SF: “During this trial, we revived the memory of the death thesis, that you came here to silence, with several inspectors repeating that they believe that the child is dead. Now that you have this decision, do you think that the Portuguese public opinion is now in a position to forget about that part of the story, to forget that there was a period during which the Polícia Judiciária actually believed that the child is dead?”

ID: “What happened during this trial was that the only people who defended that thesis in reports in the process that is archived in Portimão, were brought here. No people who did not defend that thesis, namely the inspectors that undersigned the last report, which prompted the archiving of the process, were brought to this trial. As a matter of fact, the judge mentions exactly that, and clarified that she read the full Portimão inquiry before uttering this decision.”

SF: “And wat was the conclusion, what was the argument that the magistrate offered to justify maintaining this injunction?”

ID: “It’s the same arguments, in more depth, of the first injunction, that is to say, that this book… She weighed the rights that are in confrontation here, that is to say, the right to freedom of expression, and the right of people to be treated with dignity and to be respected, and from that weight, from that evaluation, the judge understood that this book could not remain on the market because it violated rights that are more important than that of freedom of expression.”

SF: “Concerning the main process, and your will, and the McCann couple’s will to reopen that process, what phase is it in, at the moment?”

ID: “In our office, we are analysing all of the documents that came from the Algarve, selecting those that seem to be important to us and that which is secondary, or absolutely necessary, so I can meet with my colleagues and with my clients, and all of us make a decision concerning the reopening of the process, which they have manifested, over the last few days, that they want to do, after finding out that there are several elements in the Portimão process that they did not know about.”

SF: “Thank you. Thus ends this trial, this saga, another saga in the Madeleine McCann process. Gonçalo Amaral’s book, The Truth of the Lie, is definitely, or at least, at this moment, forbidden, it remains forbidden. Gonçalo Amaral is prevented from repeating the thesis that he defended and sustained in the book, which is to say, the thesis that he fed during the period that he coordinated the investigation, that is to say, believing that the child is dead and that the couple is behind the concealment of the cadaver.

The magistrate, Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues, agreed with the couple’s pretension and sustained, in today’s decision, that the right to a good name prevails and that therefore this book cannot remain on the market. It hasn’t been on the market since September, now we know that it will remain like that.

Nonetheless, Gonçalo Amaral continues saying that he will appeal until wherever necessary, even up to the European Court of Human Rights.”

'the right of people to be treated with dignity and to be respected' - this has to earned, not bought! If anything became clear after the hearings that is the fact that the McCanns lied to the Police (Menezes) and that they were not to be trusted (Lee Rainbow, British Police, and PJ).So, Judge Maria Gabriela, you just failed Justice, the truth, Portugal and Madeleine.

ID: “In our office, we are analysing all of the documents that came from the Algarve, selecting those that seem to be important to us and that which is secondary, or absolutely necessary, so I can meet with my colleagues and with my clients, and all of us make a decision concerning the reopening of the process, which they have manifested, over the last few days, that they want to do, after finding out that there are several elements in the Portimão process that they did not know about.”

The next morning in the UK at the Sky press conference GM says whether the file is reopened or not is a technical issue.

The file imo he says this as if it is just a paper folder and not an actual police investigation!

Why would parents who claim their child has been abducted by paedophiles allow their child's case to be archived? Why would they not want their child's case to be a live ongoing investigation by the police? My thought is and always has been is the same as Dr G A says above the McC's do not want all possibilities investigated! That imo is very suspicious!

"What happened during this trial was that the only people who defended that thesis in reports in the process that is archived in Portimão, were brought here. No people who did not defend that thesis, namely the inspectors that undersigned the last report, which prompted the archiving of the process, were brought to this trial."Then, why didn't Isabel Duarte use those inspectors as witnesses for her clients? Why did dhe not call them and ask them to expose their opinions in court against the opinions of their colleagues who concurred with Mr. Amaral's thesis?

Joana, if possible, maybe it would be of interest to refresh our memory, and post a link to that "last report" that prompted the archiving? Thank you.

Dear Anonymous #5, you can read a translation of the final PJ report here:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post324.html#p324

It starts with one of the most appaling statements that I have seen in this process: that Madeleine's disappearance took place on the evening of the 3rd of May, 2007, between 9.05 and 10 p.m. - a time slot that is defined, at both ends, by the depositions of... two arguidos.

"the judge understood that this book could not remain on the market because it violated rights that are more important than that of freedom of expression.”

No no no - IT IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - if that was the case, every criminal or irresponsible person or action could cite that their good name is more important. Thats the same as saying `People can behave as disgracefully as they want, commit every crime under the sun, but if you dare express your disagreement and thereby tarnish their good name, they can sue you for defamation.

Huntley Brady and Fred WestGerry's up there with the bestI guess he thinks it's really hip,manTo be compared to Dr. ShipmanBut for all his bravado remember just thisLike them in the end he will face justice

Joana, you assumed on another page that CM made a closed-door testimony. Are you 100% sure ? ID is right about the fact that none of the second PJ team testified, though the lack of effective actions seems to indicate that they weren't convinced M would be alive.

@ Anonymous 5The inspectors who signed the report would most probably have reacted cautiously like Menezes, fifty/fifty, which by itself would have demonstrated that GA is no brainwasher and his ideas not contagious, but just an opinion among others.

The use of the European Convention on Human Rights in this case is an abuse of that convention. It wqas never intended to be used to protect criminals. This is lawyer speak and the judge has allowed the lawyers to rule above the rights of the individual - playing with convention rights is an abuse of those rights.

This judge should hang her head in shame at what she has allowed here - although I suspect it is her inexperience and lack of wisdon in failing to notice the McCann agenda.

Her only defence is that the law does not recognise motives.

Rest assured, however, that the vast majority of people will not obey the attempt at mind control - we will consider the possibility that Mdeleine is dead - as it is of course the most likely.

I agree with Jo that allowing suspects to define the 'window' in which an abduction might have taken place is incredible. Personally I believe McCann himself was the person seen by Tanner - as the testimony of Smith seems to confirm.

I notice that ID speaks of "reopening of the process" and not of "review of the process" (by some neutral entity). She's in a sort of trap : after claiming important sightings and leads have been neglected (and this was her only argument to maintain the ban), how can she finally admit nothing justified investigation, without first investigating ? How could she pretend that the PJ refused to investigate, without exhibiting a request by their clients?I do have a feeling she's believes the McCs like some believe in God. Astro, are GCR's conclusions public ?

This is the official statement of the Gaspers the Mc`s have tried to hide ,I wonder why ?However there have been worrying reports regarding her husband, David, who was also amongst the group. Dr. Katherine Zacharias Gaspar told Leicestershire Police on May, 16, 2007, [report was only sent to the PJ on 24 October 2007] that she and her husband were friends of the **** and went on holiday with them and the Paynes in September 2005. During this holiday an incident stuck in her mind.

"I was sitting between Gerry and David and I think both were talking about **** (...). I remember David saying something to Gerry about "she", meaning **** 'would do this'. While he mentioned the word 'this', David was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple (...). I remember being shocked by that."

How can Kate & Gerry Mccann look at photographs of children like Madeleine being abused ? I can't get my head round that at all, if they know for a fact that it can't be Madeleine,to me that is beyond sick and they seem to relish the idea that she is with an abductor (but no harm has come to her)what is going on in their heads?

Sorry about being off topic. Just to say the Daily Express are now allowing comments on Mc Cann article the tide is most definiatley changeing.http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/159385/-Heart-breaking-failures-in-search-for-our-Madeleine

Just to let everybody know that the Daily Express is accepting all comments without censorship and moderation Now 62 rather critical toward the Mccann, even the Gaspar's statement. For how long? Very surprising!

You cannot say available evidence shows there was no abduction.You cannot say that damning evidence points in the direction of the McCannsYou cannot say MMs disappearance is a mystery.You cannot say her parents were negligent.You cannot say MMs parents know more than they are sayingYou cannot say you have a difference of opinion to the negligent parentsYou cannot say the parents were unhelpful You cannot say the parents do not want this case re-openingYou cannot say the parents actions helped to contaminate the crime sceneYou cannot say the dogs know something happened at various locations

But we can think it, Judge Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues, and one day I think we will be free, to see and read the TEMPORARY banned book.because we all have a right to be treated with dignity and respect.

I for one feel bound by this naive portuguese judge and will not discuss the possibility that Madeleine may not have been abducted as there is no evidence that she was and that the McCanns are using the claim that she was abducted to obtain money from an unsuspecting public to pay their bills. I think it appalling that people are claiming that Gerry carried Madeleine away himself that night and that jane Tanner is a proven liar.

Dont look to me to break the new Portuguese world jurisdiction!

I love the McCanns and think they shoudl sue Madeleine for causing them such terrible distress.

Post 17, it is utterly incredible that this is in the public domain - I know it is known to Mark Williams Thomas for example, who purports to be fighting for the protection of children - yet nothing is being done about it.

Perhaps we need to make sure that those who are really looking after the protection of children, like Sarah Paynes mum, know about it.

In the interview of SF to ID i notice that the lawyer spoke cautiously about the reopening... they are analysing the process bls bla.. and at the end they will find some excuse to don't ask the reopening.

Anon 24, I have just finished reading the 5 pages of comments, and I am absolutely speechless that the Express have let them through, the tide has really turned. The DM and Express are obviously sick to the teeth at having to bow down and adhere to all the McCanns demands for keeping everything hidden away, they have been as crafty as the Ms and although they do not criticise the Ms in their reports they are letting the public do it for them on the message boards. Has CR been sacked perhaps or maybe they haven't been paid so have lifted the super injunctions, something is obviously going on behind the scenes.

The McCanns must be shi**ing themselves, they have called the shots for so long now it has all turned against them. They must be truly regretting the day they got too cocky and decided to get Amaral's book banned. As the saying goes "what goes around comes around".

:)] Hi there Astro. Thanks for all the good work too. Keep it going. It is gathering momentum...

Talking about the "body snatcher" window of opportunity. As I am sure you know, it is exactly the McCann's doctored version of events (one that the post-Amaral puppets have accepted) that makes their abduction theory so hard to digest.

Here (below) is a brilliant article that I am sure you have read.I am posting the link here for the benefit of readers who have not.

It was not exactly a "window of opportunity", it was more like a pinhole... :-o

"How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of nomore than 3-4 minutes?" by Barbara Nottage.

When the McCann's tried to bend the definition of freedom of speech and/or opinion to suit their own self-image (I am trying to be polite here) at that very moment they lost (I think) the solidarity of the mainstream media - which so far, bound by tribal loyalties, political correctness and spin, had supported them.

An interesting parallel of this would be with Media guidelines in the UK. These allow for breachs of individual rights such as invasion of privacy when the matter is of public interest, crime related, etc.

True you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the McCann's are guilty but nor can you prove that Amaral's theory is irrational. In fact, I would say the facts of the investigation are on Amaral's side. It is not 50/50 as it was said at the hearing. It is more like 49/51. 51 to Amaral of course.

Finally, the McCann's were allowed to fly home on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to incriminate them. Not on the grounds that there was no evidence whatsoever (circunstancial and otherwise).

"The guidance from the National Society from the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is very clear; NEVER LEAVE YOUNG CHILDREN ON THEIR OWN. There are many other child welfare organisations. They all say exactly the same."

Let's be honest, as would say KM who uses a lot that expression ! They could be innocent of one of the acts GA thinks they're guilty, the body concealment. The carrier who crossed the Smiths - this is still the most solid fact - might be an opportunist local abductor looking like GM who found M wandering in the street, ended up killing her and burried her very deeply. They're still guilty of simulating the abduction. Why ? They felt so guilty that their first thought was to deny the wandering off, to accuse someone else of whatever had happened. They knew M had a tendency to wake up and get out of her bed, they knew that through the crying episode she had discovered her parents weren't home at night, they knew she wouldn't be scared to look for them in the dark.I know this doesn't satisfy the dogs, but it would explain something that I can't figure out : how were they capable to behave normally that evening ?

I agree about the tide turning in the UK press. There was little or no reporting of Kate's "Amaral and his supporters" rant during the press conference. Even the hand-picked reporters at the press conference picked up on her remarks very quickly, asking Kate whether she was saying there were divisions in the PJ. The papers made little mention of Amaral himself - the headlines were all about the McCanns "criticising", "condemning" and "attacking" the Portuguese and British police in general.

It is extraordinary how the MCs always know better. They know better how M disappeared (abduction), what didn't happened to her (harm, death), they knew better that the colobama was a good logo and that a reconstitution was of no use, they knew better who was capable to find their daughter (PIs) and know better now who has the duty and the competence to find their daughter (a team of British and Portuguese police), they know better that this is a "high profile case" and "international" at that ("european" isn't enough). No wonder they feel let down sometimes.

Does anyone remember that most of the streets of Luz were dug up at the time M went missing? A drainage scheme was in operation and most of the streets were open with large pipes being put in place. From the supermarket which is half way between the apt and the tapas bar right down the hill and around by the church and on towards the beach was wide open. A small child looking for her parents could quite easily fall in there in the dark. It would be natural for the child upon waking to go looking in the places she knew her parents went, not the tapas bar, as they went there in the evenings without her, but the Paaradisio or beach bar where they took her for lunch. That was a three-street walk down hill towards the beach. In the dark, alone. I suggest only one person left the tapas bar that night. Namely GM and then only because he needed to use the toilet and found it more appealing to use his own bathroom instead of any shared one at the tapas bar. He is the only one we have 'solid evidence' (to use his own much favoured word) of leaving the tapas bar as he met with another and spoke to him outside the apt. There isn't even evidence that he entered the apt at all, the only evidence is that he met this man and stood outside chatting. This other man said he did not see JT walking past them...is that because she never did? There was no person carrying a child? Did they concoct this story in a blind panic when km also decided to use the bathroom and found the child gone? They had to concoct it then because all of them had left their kids alone. Neglect is a criminal offence and they couldn't risk having there kids taken away from them. This is why we first heard the window was open, the curtains were whooshed open, the shutters were up, etc ... but the shutters were down when the police arrived... shutters that can only be opened from inside,,, lichen on the outer-side totally undisturbed as seen by police forensic evidence, and only one persons fingerprint on the inside sill. Later we are told a different story about the shutters. It's a red herring, they might be confused. While these people are most likely telling the truth about not knowing what happened to their daughter and are not concealing information, they caused the whole debacle by telling a web of lies to save their own sorry, miserable skins in regard to the total neglect. It had to be a blind panic, because any mother in her right mind having discovered one child gone would never run away and leave two more even younger children behind her. Which she did.Another point occurs about km saying her clothes indicated to the cadavar dog because she'd been around several deceased people in her line of work leading up to her holiday, who wears light cotton 3/4 lenght trousers and a t-shirt going to work in England in March and April? if she did would they not have been laundered. Most people buy new summer clothes going on holiday.

post 37. I agree that this could have been a backlash by the press against the injunction and a warning shot to the McCanns. The effect of so many negative comments being seen by government media monitoring is also bound to alert the government to the fact that the public opinion is against the McCanns. They will not want to help them now and the McCanns know it. Hence their desperate appleal to Cameron, who, I hope, has more sense than to support them.

The abduction is no doubt at 99,9999% unlikely. I observe that abduction wasn't faked properly speaking. If so they would have prepared the crime scene better, KM wouldn't have left fingerprints on the window, the blinds would have been open as well as the window slightly open for fresh air and the lichen disturbed, etc. Abduction, I think, was improvised. The idea passed through KM's head when she, in a double panic (about M and about herself), opened the window to look outside. I agree with Anonymous 44 and others that a mother discovering an open window and a missing child doesn't silently run 50 m to alert her husband and friends but gets on the terrace and screams like a beast.Now, Anonymous 45, I pinpointed that the wandering off doesn't satisfy the dogs but it resolves a doubt that I'm sure everybody feels concerning the disturbing calm of these parents at the tapasbar that night. It resolves also the body concealment difficulties which were the main argument of the MP to give the MCs the benefit of doubt.You would be mistaken if you'd induce that the lying MCs are, in this hypothesis, innocent after all because they crucially hampered M's quest. Moreover nobody ever will forgive any little spark of compassion for them. Not to mention the costs, the lost energy, etc.. I don't know whether the GM lookalike was carrying a dead child or not. You meet a lost child in a street at night. You're a potential abductor, you knock her down, making sure she remains silent, etc. Or you just want to help, but scare the child speaking basic English or Portuguese. You get scared yourself, put your hand on her mouth to stop her screaming, sort of suffocate her, she faints and, through a vagal reflexe, dies...

@ Anonymous 44In January the Court room wasn't heated, it was pretty cold and humid. Even with my coat on I was feezing. KM took her coat off, she only had some kind of T-shirt, she remained like this hours... Must have a high metabolism.May be the British corpses story is true and may be the dogs are then extremely sensitive.

One - that a grieving, frightened mother held her oldest child closely to her after the child's death.

Two - That the mother wore casual checkered pants to work on 6 or 7 occasions to deal with the serious matter of patients who had died.

The first is very likely, the second would display a lack of professionalism that is impossible for me to imagine. The FACT is that Eddie also alerted to Cuddle Cat and other items owned or used by the McCanns, their rental car etc.

If you are saying that Eddie's sensitivity would be to such an extreme level, and that it had been simply a transferal of death scent from Kate's previous weeks, then Eddie would have alerted to everything she touched. He alerted to Kate's checkered pants, not her entire wardrobe.

So either Kate held a daughter she loved (despite everything that has happened since, I think it is clear she loved Maddie); or Kate wore checkered pants (and brought Cuddle cat along) to attend to patient's deaths.

I think Kate said goodbye to her little girl while wearing those pants, and that no matter how angry all of us justifiably are regarding this cover-up, the image of that goodbye is heartbreaking.

Kate's choices since that point, if they have not been made due to EXTREME government pressure, are not deserving of an ounce of compassion.

GA wanted the dogs to be brought to Rothley. The LP refused, too expensive probably. It's a pity. But, I said it before, it's not too late to experiment their capability of recognizing the cadaver odour on pants that spent some time close to a corpse, on objects upon which those pants have been pressed, whether a key kept in the pocket gets the odour, etc.

#44While I agree with you that KM would not wear her holiday clothes to work, I don't think your "wandering away" idea works.

You say:"A small child looking for her parents could quite easily fall in there in the dark. It would be natural for the child upon waking to go looking in the places she knew her parents went, not the tapas bar, as they went there in the evenings without her, but the Paaradisio or beach bar where they took her for lunch. "

1 - it does not explain the dogs' alert2 - M's routine centred around going to kid's club. She didn't do much else with her parents during the day. 3 - The drains were checked.

I agree that the dogs are very disturbing. But the apparent serenity at the Tapas restaurant up to 22 pm is very disturbing too. And what about the management of the corpse during 3 weeks ? It shouldn't be too difficult to know whether and how many April 2007 death certificates registered in KM's hospital were signed by her.Concerning dog's nose, Germans have made experiences with different kind of support. There may be variation from one dog to another. Martin Grime must have an opinion. The trouble with liars is that they turn into a deadlock everything able to destroy their forged construction. For example, instead of using the Smith's observation that the carrier looked like GM, which is possible since GM isn't physically caracteristic, they just ignore it. And in order to ignore it they overvalue JT's extraordinary sighting, that misleads the police, etc...

I must agree with Anonymous 54 and I'm pretty sure the drains were properly checked. As I trust more the Smiths' 9x2 eyes than not the dogs' nose but our capacity to interpret the dogs' reactions, I don't believe in some Madeleine in Wonderland adventure.

Doctors do earn extra money by visiting undertakers to confirm that bodies due for cremation are dead - this always needs 2 signatures. If she did 6 that week it means she would have earnt about £400 odd as they get £75. for each person they confirm is dead. Its a bit unusual that she did 6 in one week when she only worked one and a half days a week. Anyway this could be easily checked out. Anyway all doctors, after checking the body, always wash their hands thoroughly. I suppose cadaver odour could transfer to a sleeve of a top but don`t see how it could go on trousers unless she had to move each body and they don`t usually have to do that. Maybe it was cuddle cat that examined the bodies.Louise

I was not suggesting for a moment that little M went on some 'wonderland adventure'.This was a 3 yr old child that woke, crying perhaps, for her parents. Crying for parents that were, once again, gone. Off on their own adventure. Again. It is strongly rumoured in Luz that these people dined not just at the tapas bar as they claimed but also at other restaurants in the village. One called 'Chaplins' is below the church, over 3 streets away. This however, is as I say, rumour. However they did claim that while they were at the tapas bar they felt they were 'in their own garden, like having a barbecue in their own garden. I've been to family barbecues, my family feel so safe no one feels the need to run in and check the kids every 3 to 5 minutes. (MO went at 21.03, gm went at 21.05) this just doesnt make sense for people who felt 'so comfortable'. I think because they felt so safe, they didn't check. What I was really pointing out, is that, like in Aislings case, although the area was thourily searched for 48 hours at the time of her disapearance, a week later she found in the very same area that had been searched.I realise my thesis is weak when it comes to the dogs. The childs mother explained the indication of blood on M suffering from nose bleeds. And her own clothes indicating for the cadavar scent. Seems like an awful lot of defensive and convienant answers to me. But to apply my K.I.S.S. principle to this, (keep, it, simple, stupid) than I must disregard everything the mc's and their friends say and chuck it out of the picture. Only concrete corroborated evidance applies. So how did the dogs indicate so positively at the apt?Well, the blood could be anything, there was only a minute sample of it. It's not like it was a pool or anything. Then, the apt had been routinely cleaned by the staff of OC before the forensics got to it. But the cadavar dog? Hmm. I must give this more thought.As for cuddlecat going anywhere near km's work, come on. The woman had 3 children. She's a doctor, going to work. she takes 1 child's toy with her? Why?? Her children are safe and well at home, why should she give any one of their toys a second thought? She's not physic. She doesn't see into the future, oh, I must keep cuddlecat with me.

In Aisling's case, I think it rained terribly just after her disappearance. Someone used imagination about what would happen with all that rain to the toddler's body in case she had fallen in a drain and went down to a certain place where effectively she was.Speaking of Madeleine in Wonderland I was just remembering Alice falling into the Rabbit hole.After M's disappearance, KM used a lot the famous pants, according to the pictures, and was always clutching CC, could the smell emigrate from one material to the other ?

M. dies in flat when parents leave for dinner.Members of the Tapas 9 do (or don't really))their checking by just listening when they need to go to the loo, she is lying behind the sofa. G finds her and decides this is not going to jeopardise his career, cleans up, opens window to set scene, takes M to be found elsewhere.K finds M missing and window open, touches it (hence, fingerprint).M is not found, someone decides to move the body...K comes into contact with the body later...

An Anonymous on this page who suggested that GM left the restaurant around 21:10 to go to his own bathroom and not to check the children could be right. This would explain the curiosity of a checking limited to his own children and 5/10 minutes after MO's one (just listening from outside). GM went to the loo and most probably didn't enter the children bedroom. KM would have obviously done the same (only listening) without some detail : she claims the bedroom door was open, but may be the front door or the patio door was.

Perhaps Madeleine was moved from behind the settee to the closet in the bedroom and left there on the night of May 2nd. Wasn't something said about Kate sleeping in the kid's bedroom the night before Maddie disappeared? Even she could not sleep in a room with her dead child's body hidden in the closet.

Perhaps they originally placed the body somewhere hidden-- a cave?-- but then Kate freaked out because she wanted a funeral so Gerry moved the body to somewhere obvious in the hopes it would be found and a stranger blamed for the death. But the body never was found. Feral dogs?

I still want to know why they are being protected at the highest levels. I don't buy the Freemason theory. I know a few Masons and they are ordinary people.

Anon 70 - I disagree about her not sleeping in a room with her dead child`s body there - surely a mother would want to be with her child`s body. When someone has died, its hard to walk away from their body.

The McCs are ordinary people, Anonymous 70, impelled to the front of the stage by media, bloggers and millionaires. The political and the religious support vanished when they were made arguidos. The millionaires hold on, they had their image of astuteness to protect for business reasons as well.Why are they asking help and review to officials ? If GA's right, why do they try to launch the search again on the front of the stage instead of disappearing slowly into the darkness of the backstage ?

aacg, the McCanns were not impelled, since 2007 they've used the media to obstruct the proper course of the investigation, attacking right and left those who oppose their unfundamented thesis and hinder it with silly media spins of fake sightings, fake suspects and mass media hysteria. They are not asking for nothing to the proper authorities, in court, it was said, the McCanns have not given any information to the PJ of their private investigation - their last appeal sounds empty, they are not asking for the process to be reopened and thus the investigation cannot continue. What they are doing is more of the same, to clear their image, with the added fact that now they intend to change history: the facts of what happened during the investigation, and the conclusions reached by 2 police forces.

Joana, these people are ordinary people, not especially clever nor eloquent. They used the media, sure, but I don't think it was premeditate. First the media had to come there and moreover to stay. And they stayed because of a conjunction of facts, each one potentiating the other. It was silly to think for a minute that M could be found through a huge media covering. Neither did the media's presence help the investigation for sure, but, imo, what hampered it mainly were the Tapas9s' - how did Menezes call them ? - untruths !

Here in the US, Mark Furhman the police officer made famous as a racist by Johnny Cochran in the OJ Simpson murder trial wrote a book solving the murder case of Martha Moxley in Greenwich. The murderer was a member of the Kennedy family. The Kennedys, a very powerful family in the US were very unhappy that the book was written and published even more so when Michael Skakel was found guilty but they never once put a ban on "Murder in Greenwich" written by Furhman as it was his right to voice his opinion. How is it that the McCanns are allowed to go to a foreign country and subjegate the rights of Mr. Amaral? Don't they understand how guilty they appear by doing so? They did not cooperate with the police investigation and have wasted money on hack detectives which have gotten them nowhere which is what they seem to want. It's like OJ Simpson vowing to find Nicole's real killer knowing all along that he did it. The McCanns come of the same way. How shameful for that Portuguese judge to allow such a thing as a "book ban" to go forth.

By their actions they have drawn attention to the book. It has in all probability sold more copies than otherwise would have and thousends of people have read/continue to read/have downloaded it from the internet. They themselves have caused this reaction/backlash.

I remember well Det Mark Furhman, he was nothing but a racist jerk because of which, in my opinion, contributed hugely in the prosecution losing their case

Nothing could be further from the truth about Mark Furhman. The tape Johnny Cochran played at the trial was an audition tape where Mr. Furhman was auditioning to play a racist, rogue cop for a movie. The point being that he played the role so well, he must have been racist but as Olivier said "it's called acting". Then it also came out that Mark Furhman in a 25 year career as a detective was known for finding evidence in cases over looked by others and that during that time had partners that were African American, Latino and Asian American who said he was never racist.

What I find truly horrifying is how Kate McCann expected us to believe that she took her dirty work clothes smelling of death and packed them in her suitcase without laundering them to go on holiday which is what fooled the cadaver dogs... she thinks we're all stupid or is a slattern, filthy woman which doesn't sound like a doctor of medicine should.